2010 Update on Stuffs (TFLs minus Sacks)
Perhaps the most fascinating and intellectually rich characteristics of American football is the constant cat-and-mouse game between opposing offensive and defensive play calling. One of the greatest compliments to retired FSU defensive coordinator Mickey Andrews was the advent of the spread offense; Mickey’s aggressive man-to-man coverage, speed rush, and front 7 speed dominated college I-form offenses throughout the 90s and into the early turn of the new millennia. (See Bud Elliot’s tribute to Mickey here)
Football coaches at any level will give you the same pre-game coach speak: "If we can stop the run, we can stop their offense." And though archaic, the axiom holds true. Success in the ground game is a great way to alter pass coverage schemes and force defenses to devote coverages and personnel closer to the line of scrimmage. You can't rush 3 and drop 8 if you're getting gashed by the rushing game. 2nd and short to-goes give offensive coordinators carte blanche to open up the playbook - a failure gives you 3rd and short, a situation most offenses can get a 1st down on.
[picture via Advanced NFL Stats]
The graphic to the left shows that the percentages of eventually achieving a 1st down come out to 70% vs. 50% under a 2nd-and-5 situation as compared to a 2nd-and-10. This makes sense. Notice, though, how the probability on 2nd down drops precipitously when the result of the previous play was negative (i.e., >10 yards to go). Most notably, the 1st down probabilities between 2nd and 10 vs 2nd and ~12 goes from 55% to 45%.
A defense can stop the run by controlling the point of attack (POA) - that is, winning the battle in the trenches. The defensive line doesn't have to win every one-on-one battle to be effective. Maintaining gap discipline means successfully occupying the spaces in between the offensive linemen and minimizing holes and openings for backs to scoot through.
Mickey Andrews featured a defense built for speed over size, hoping to generate pressure on QBs in passing downs, and overcoming the lack of size on defense by utilizing the speed of the front 7 through penetration and gang-tackling. Unfortunately, the 2009 defense featured a complete lack of a pass rush from the DE position, average DT play, and LBs and SSs who took bad angles, or got eaten up by blocking linemen that no longer had to focus solely on 1st-level blocks. In short, we lost the POA through a lack of size and technique - especially from our front 4.
Though showing some late season weariness, the front 4 play in 2010 was significantly better than last. The hiring of defensive end coach D.J. Eliot - combined with a rejuvenated O'Dell Haggins and a championship-caliber strength and conditioning program under Vic Viloria - produced a dramatic turn-around for the defense as a whole. Not only has FSU reversed the 2009 trend of huge rushing gains against, the pass rush has been extremely productive. Junior WDE Brandon Jenkins has shown technique, hustle, and a still-raw ability to win one-on-one battles versus opposing tackles. Jenkins finished the season 5th in the nation as well as 2nd in the ACC with 13.5 sacks in 14 games (Binford salute to manquake DaQuan Bowers). There are rumors that Jenkins is north of 270 right now, which would put him size-wise near that of Bowers in 2010. (Count me as skeptical, in general, on rumored pre-season weights.)
But what about FSU's rush defense? One could point to Tackles-for-Loss (TFLs) as an immediate gauge of defensive prowess. A TFL is defined as any tackle ending in negative yardage (arguably, 0 yard gains have been recorded as TFLs). However, according to NCAA stat keeping, a TFL includes Sacks in its calculation. As mentioned in many comments on this site, this is undoubtedly conflating two very different defensive results within a statistic unnecessarily. So let's unpack it.
Subtract sacks out from the TFL, and we're left with a stuff. Stuffs can be especially demoralizing - blockers on offense are attacking defenders on run plays. So you're getting your best mano y mano shot in as an offensive player on those plays. A negative play here is like getting uppercutted when you're about to land a hook.
In 2010, FBS teams averaged 49 stuffs per team, which comes out to just under 4 per game. But we know that any game can feature a unique number of plays, as well as a unique number of rushing plays an opponent might run at you.
Here are the national numbers for Stuffs per rush against. The table is oriented from highest percentage (~most frequent at stuffing the opposition's run plays) to lowest for 2010 (ACC teams highlighted). Running plays against (Opp.Runs) have sacks removed.
|
When you think of stopping the run, you think of Kent State. Wait, what? Now the Miami (Ohio) defensive coordinator, Pete Rekstis dialed up a very strong defense. Consider this:
In 2010, Kent State ranked second in the country in tackles for loss (8.3), fifth in rushing defense (97.2), 11th in sacks (2.9) and 13th in total defense (306.7), setting a school record with 35 sacks. The Golden Flashes held two opponents to negative yards rushing.
Now we know the NCAA conflates the rushing defense yardage by not removing sacks from the total, but those are still quite the impressive numbers. Speaking of impressive, did Nebraska (#4 in S&P Pass D) just drop 11 on every play? Yet they have the number 1 ranked F/+ defensive in 2010, and a not-too-shabby #25 ranking in S&P Rush D. Go figure.
Boston College was the highest-ranked major program on the list. This isn't surprising. Intelligent FSU fans have long recognized that Coach Spaziani is an incredible defensive coach. In the recruiting mold of a Virginia Tech, Spaz gets guys locally that others may or may not know about. Coach Spaziani makes up for the lack of elite recruits (national 4* and 5* players), though, by outstandingly coaching a front 7 that play off each other in a system as well as any front 7 in CFB. And the adjusted defensive stats back that up. BC's 4-3 is text-book in the praxis of an interdependent front 7.
Miami, NC State, and Clemson (2, 3, and 4 in the ACC) also featured a unique ability to stop opponent rushes for a loss. Given each team's relative talent level and coaching, this shouldn't be too surprising. On a slightly unrelated note, Miami's entire starting defense should be gone (graduated or turning pro) by this upcoming season's conclusion.
I found it astounding that FSU was 9th in the conference and in the bottom-half of FBS teams, ahead of Coach Botched's UNC depleted squad, ne'er-do-wells Duke and heavily-rebuilding GT. Given FSU's massive improvement in adjusted defensive metrics (107th to 41st in D F/+), you would think that FSU's increased size and focus on stopping the run would have featured an increase in Stuffs per run against. Clearly, this was not the case. But we have to acknowledge that the Stuffs.pP conflates scheme-calls and overall 1-on-1 ability of the front 7.
If you remember back to the first time I wrote about stuffs, I showed how just before the bowl season UNC was 2nd in the nation, averaging almost 6 stuffs per game. It's a little disconcerting to think A) just how good UNC could have been in 2010 with Austin, Carter, and the other misfits and B) they may have shut us down here in Tallahassee.
|
I realize that Stuffs.pP can be conflated between a dominating front 4 vs. a defensive scheme that likes to run-blitz alot. But we know that FSU isn't much of a cover-0 team (though with our CBs, we probably could gamble a lot and win with that). Having said that, it appears that the game in Charlottesville was anything but sportsmanlike. Go watch the highlights again and see if you don't come away with your ears ringing, too.
Credit NC State for an excellent gameplan and execution against a front 4 that was starting to fade due to lack of quality depth. They utilized a lot of pro-style straight ahead runs, and FSU's snapcount - especially at the interior DL positions - started to show. Note that this will not be an issue for future 'Nole defenses (barring some horrendous luck). FSU actually would not finish with double-digit Stuffs.pP for the rest of the season, though the defense was obviously rejuvenated for the USCe bowl game.
Finally, here's an individual breakdown of the top Stuffers from the 2010 campaign.
|
45 comments
|
3 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Every time this subject comes up i see Lattimer standing over a tailback saying "i don't think you got it, pal!"
2011........ The ACC will begin to once again witness the power that is FSU football!
by Scalpemall on Aug 1, 2011 2:33 PM EDT reply actions 1 recs
Every time this subject comes up, I see Lattimore laying on the ground... not saying anything
He was STUFFED! (Regardless of the line of scrimmage)
Without the juice?
Yeah, that guy from Iowa steamrolled him.
2011........ The ACC will begin to once again witness the power that is FSU football!
Absolutely
10 of the 13 were FR or SO. Another year of scheme, S&C, and gelling as a team, the stuffs have to increase.
Not to mention waaaaaaay more depth
so the Dline can go balls out every down
"Kill a fly with an axe"
by SteadfastNole on Aug 1, 2011 2:52 PM EDT up reply actions
Let's see
You used “depth” and “balls out” in a postdiscussing “stuffs”. Sorry rico, I couldn’t let this slide.
My team doesn't have to be the best. They just have to win.
by Jamil Dawson on Aug 2, 2011 12:27 PM EDT up reply actions
That, or SP+ Run Offense
Anything to get Miami (OH) out of the top 3.
by Nolesos Locos on Aug 1, 2011 3:12 PM EDT up reply actions
Yes, excellent point
It won’t get rid of them, but it will be nice to see. Changing it now.
What are you glorifying with your life?

>------::----::------->Spearing 'em and Scalping 'em like it's 1999
I'm not so sure this Jimbo fella is the right man for the job.
Nice work Mr. Rico. Interesting Read.
However, what are your thoughts about actually using this as a metric to measure defense improvement? Or toward indicating the overall defensive prowess if you will? I’m not sure how many conclusions can be drawn on stuffs given the lack of (or weak) correlation (eye ball test – didn’t actually compute this) between stuffs and the S&P+ rankings from 2010. Perhaps a correlation would exist if your list was somehow adjusted for SP+ Run offense as indicated by Nole Locos.
Great question
I’m a little worried that Stuffs can be controlled by having dominant talent (i.e., winning 1-on-1’s) or by featuring a heavy run-blitz scheme designed to confuse lines (my guess: smaller teams running the 3-3). So that is a concern.
However, with NolesLocos’ suggestion, I added the S&P Rush Def. ranking. There is a very strong, negative correlation between Stuffs.pP and the respective rush ranking. This makes sense, obviously. In fact, the rate of Stuffs per rush against can explain about 17% of the variance for a team’s S&P Rushing D. rank. Not overwhelming, but the signal is there: The higher your Stuffs.pP, the lower your Rush.D.Rk.
What are you glorifying with your life?
I don't know if you have the capability Rico
But I would be interested to see the numbers if 1-yard gains were included. I don’t see much difference in the probability of gaining a first down between 10 yards and 9 yards.
Formerly known as 'stilts'
I would too
but that is a crapton more work. The advantage of “Stuffs” from a data standpoint is that TFLs and Sacks are already counted. Consider Stuffs to be a low-hanging fruit.
What are you glorifying with your life?
That's what I figured
Don’t know if you’ve looked through the data from the ‘data-share’ project going on at footballstudyhall. Might be some way to get that data from there (not sure).
Formerly known as 'stilts'
The Rush.D.R#s and Nebraska being dead last in the Stuff cateogry
seem to suggest Stuffs are not that important to palying a good Rush D- or just playing plain old good D.
That said – I really appreciate the article.
Thanks
But to your Nebraska comment, the answer is no: They are an outlier according to the model. See posts above.
What are you glorifying with your life?
I forget the term, but isn't there a way to do a 'R-line fit' or some other statistical measure
to see how closely the points correlate to the line?
Formerly known as 'stilts'
You can measure the correlation coefficient between two variables; that's called R
R-squared is another metric that shows how much of the variance can be explained by the other variable.
The best way to go here is an actual model; a linear model, where the Rush.D.Rk is the dependent variable, and the Stuffs rate is the independent variable. This is plotted above, and visually yields that a team that records 15% Stuff.pP rate vs. a team that records a 10% Stuff.pP rate fields about a 40-position better ranked rush defense.
What are you glorifying with your life?
It would be interesting to see...
the stuffs broken down between DL and LB. I would venture a guess that a team like BC would have a higher percentage of LB stuffs due to scheme and run blitzing than a team like Auburn last year who relied on dominant line play, particularly Fairley. I would suspect that Auburn will drop off a good bit due to that, whereas BC would stay fairly (pun intended) consistant.
So I was watching the whole UVA highlight video and
What jumped out to me was the inconsistency of Jermaine as a blocker. Wanna know why he isn’t starting? Its less the running part and more of like in the video starting around 6:21. The first play…He straight crushed a blitzer, the very next play….he whiffed more then Greg Reid on Aaron Hernadez on the blitz.
I make it a point to watch LP
Kid rarely makes mistakes (and if he does, I can’t tell).
Formerly known as Randall W. Spetman.
I asked madame Ruth about it
She said son if in doubt go with intuition. Failing that check with Frank D.
The man who reads nothing at all is better educated than the man who reads nothing but newspapers.....Thomas Jefferson
"My choice early in life was either to be a piano player in a whorehouse or a politician. And to tell the truth, there's hardly any difference." - President Harry S. Truman

What are you glorifying with your life?
by ricobert1 on Aug 2, 2011 11:24 AM EDT up reply actions 2 recs
nice work
My head is spinning. What jumped out to me was Jenkins leading in stuffs and sacks. Too tired to think about it more though. Did I say “great job”?
by Chris Gadsden on Aug 2, 2011 3:45 AM EDT via mobile reply actions
Thought that was interesting, as well, about Jenkins
He is very nimble, and is able to beat OT to get to the ball carrier. He has a future at WDE in the league.
What are you glorifying with your life?
Nice work, Rico!
Since negative plays are an extreme (sort of) outcome of individual plays—and things like ypp and success rate sort of measure the norm—it would be interesting to add in big plays given up. Might help give some perspective on which teams are taking more risks to get the stuffs and which are simply controlling the LOS.
Better known as Dr. Kenneth Noisewater.
by Dr.KennethNoisewater on Aug 2, 2011 6:49 AM EDT reply actions 3 recs
Would like to see that.
2011........ The ACC will begin to once again witness the power that is FSU football!
I think that's a difficult distinction to make
Sacks are pretty exclusive to pass defense, stuffs are pretty much all run defense. Scheme and play calling can give you big runs against pass defense and big passes against run defense. Like if you sell out to stop the run….play action and done, see UNC vs. FSU.
So, if you’re considering all plays you probably have to assign any big run or pass to total defense.
Better known as Dr. Kenneth Noisewater.
by Dr.KennethNoisewater on Aug 2, 2011 10:25 AM EDT up reply actions
Nice read Rico
I like that the numbers correlate with the D line wearing down toward the end of the year
Greatness is consistency and performance over a long period of time - CJF
ACC has more quality talent than some would like to admit
Jenkins finished the season 5th in the nation as well as 2nd in the ACC with 13.5 sacks in 14 games
>>>─────;;─►

by 


































